NYT Equine Thought Experiment
Forgot to hit "publish now" on this . . .
The New York Times presents us, this morning, with "Equine Alternative" regarding the recent discovery that horses decided to allow themselves be domesticated by humans for our mutual benefit, earlier than we had thought (3500 BC, and we preciously thought it was more like 2500 BC).
The site was where northern Kazakhstan is now, the culture was called Botai and the date was around 3500 B.C. The Botai did not just herd horses for meat. Scientists found bit-wear marks on Botai horses’ teeth — a clear sign the animals were being ridden. They also found evidence on pottery fragments that “very likely” came from mare’s milk fat — a sign that the horses were being milked.
So far I'm not seeing the mutual benefit.
Among all the animal species on this planet, humans have domesticated only a handful. And that fact gives rise to a thought-experiment. What if that genetic or social something had been missing in horses? What if they had remained resolutely wild, refusing the domestic kinship humans tried to impose upon them? How that would have retarded the spread and integration of language, culture, civilization is hard to calculate. It is safe to say that without domesticated horses, we could not have begun to be who we are today.
As humans tend to do, early ones looked around them and saw everything and everyone as resources for their use. We would not be who we are today if we hadn't domesticated horses, but perhaps we'd be better. Perhaps if we never used nonhumans and instead relied on our own ingenuity we would have created modes of transportation better than those we have today.
Who knows . . .
But so long as we're admitting that we've been using horses for thousands of years, and now we have modes of transportation that are far more effective and efficient than horses, I think this is a great time to retire the horse from human use. Horses have done enough for us, and most of it against their will. Let's leave them alone. Horse-drawn carriages and breeding and racing horses and using them to play polo or to schlep kids around is an insult to horses. Let's begin an era of long-deserved respect for horses by not making them our toys.
If we’re talking about plowing fields, does the article include oxen with “horses”? Having dominated ‘plow animals’, such as oxen, for agricultural work might have assisted humans in “being who we are today” (i.e. overpopulated), but if we’re talking about only horses not being dominated, I think we would have done just fine without dominating horses.
It seems to me that without horses for transportation, we merely would have lived closer together and accumulated more at islands and major sea ports, where more trade occurred. Also, as you say Mary, we might have used our ingenuity a little quicker out of a perceived need. If I’m not mistaken, the major means of international trade prior to trains and trucks was sea vessels, which carried immensely more cargo than horses ever could, and much farther. International language and culture was spread much more by sea transportation rather than by horses.
Regardless of how much horses did or didn’t help humans, I agree that it is certainly time to retire horses from dominat. . .I mean domestication.
Absolutely. If we can ever stop making them "toys"… we will stop making them "meat".
I'm very concerned at the many efforts in several states to reinstate (human consumption) horse slaughter. Animal ag just doesn't want to let go of this one… For if they can't find profitable ways to get rid of the old – how will they be able to make the new ones?
And I always wondered about "horse milk"… now I know. Thanks.